Dismissed

Messers.Faraday Electricals v. the Comm,.for Wokmen Compensation and D.C.L and 2

Telangana HC6 Mar 2023WP/5667/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a show cause notice issued by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. The High Court held that the underlying order allowing compensation became final due to inaction by the petitioner. Consequently, the order issuing the show cause notice did not confer an independent right to challenge, and the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Messers.Faraday Electricals Vs the Comm,.for Wokmen… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

I WRIT PETITION NO: 5667 OF 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Messers Fqrqd-ay Electricals, H.No. 2-2-4741611 , Amberpet, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Proprietor (Sri Arun Kumar Reddy)

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Commissionet for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, R.R.Zone,tR R.District

¶12

1. lndia Government Mi nt, General Manager, Cherlapally, R-R.District

¶13

K.Sanjay, S/o.Sri K.Govind Rao, H.No.4-71, EWS Colony Ghatkesar, R.R.District

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated iJ the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, or direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus dirlcting the first respondent not to disburse the amount of Rs.64,751l- to the third lesponOent vide his show cause notice dated 25.02.2OO4 and set aside the show Cause dated 25.02.2004

¶16

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2004(WPMP. NO: 30035 0F 2004)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the documents filed along with the affidavit in support of this petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. RAVINDRANATH counsel for the Respondent lrlo.1: GP FoR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI SURENDRA DESAI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI ADHI VENKATESWARA RAO,

¶19

S.C. FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

; 1 ! t I I

¶22

! i i ) i I I I I

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.5667 of 2OO4

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Wrir Pctil-ion, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶27

India, is liled by the petrtroncr sceking the following^prayer

¶28

". . .lo rsrirr., cut orcler. ot dlrection or a Lurit more pafticularlV one ot tlle t(tlLtrc of wRlT OF MANDAMUS dtrecting the rtrst respondeit not to d6l)ursc the amount of Rs.64,751/- to^the thir{1 respondett uide lrs show cause^notice dated^25.O2.2OO4 and set ostde the sholL, cause dated^25.02.2004 and^passsuch otlrer order or orders os this Hon'ble Court^{maV deem} ft^and proper t l/le crrcurltsto nce s of the case."

¶29

l'he case^()f the petitioner, in brief,^is that^{he was awarded a} Work Order by the 2"d respondent vide Order No.30^{(CPM) dated16tr'} Mav, 2002 for rnaintcnancc ol Ventilation Chambers^{by engaging} Plr,rmbcrs, Elcctricrarts, Lalrourcrs for the^{periodfrom Ol.O2-2OO2to} 31.0 t.lL)0.1. lt $'rrs r^{rrr:rin t<'i tance} contract^{and the petitioncr} exccutcd tirc sai<l nork ordcr sttccessfully^{on 31.O1 2004. During thc} pcriod ol contract, thc pctitioner engaged 12^{persons for} rnarntenzlncc ol Ventilation Cltzrmbers of^{2"d respondent. The3<1} reslronclcnr rvars engagcd as it helper by the^{petitionerand on} 30 09.2003, Lhe pctitioner^rcccived an^{order dated16.09.2O03 vide} Mcrrrcr No.C/O¹ I 2lO2 passed by the 1"t^{respondent, wherein the}

¶30

r:lrrrrr ol tlrr: 3"1 rcspondcnt t() thc cxtent of Rs.64,751/- was allorvcd. Inrrncrlrntell . thc ;rctitronc'r' lllccl ir pctition before the 1st respondcnt

¶31

¶32

AAR.J WP No.5667 ol200.t

¶33

on 07.10.2OO3 to set aside the order contending that without rssuing any notice to the petitioner, such order could not have been passed. The Ist respondent vide order dated, 25.02.2O04 returned the said petition on the ground that 2nd respondent (principal employcr) voluntarily deposited the compensation of Rs.64,75i/_ and thcrcforc. the application of the petitioner was not maintainable. The petirioncr submits that the 2nd respondent has deposited the money with the lst respondent in pursuance of order dated 16.09.2O03 passed b-v thc 1s'respondent. Further, a communication was also reccived lrom th<: l.t respondenL on 25.02.2004 threatening to release the amount to 3.d respondent. The 2,d respondent vide letter dated 26.O9.2003 informed the petitioner that an amount of Rs.64,751/_ was deposited with the l.r respondent. Therefore, the petitioner prays this Court ro dircct the 1.r respondent not to disburse the amount of Rs.64,7.5 l/to the 3d respondent and to set aside the show cause noticc datecl 25.O2.2004

¶34

Hcard the learned counsel for both sides and perusecl rhe record

¶35

The lcarned counsel for the petitioner has vehementlv attackcd the show cause notice dated 25.02.20O4 issued by thc respondcnt No. I stating that thc respondent No.I is intending to rclease the compensation .tmount of Rs.64,751/_ to the respondent No.3

¶36

¶37

AA R.J -) WP No.5667 of 2004

¶38

¶39

workman and therefore, sought a direction to the respondent No.1 not to disburse the said amount to the respondent No.3.

¶40

When qucrred by this^('()urt as to whether the petitioner had l'iled anl' appe:rl against th(' order dated I6.09.2003 vide Memo No.Ci 3O19i 2O02 passed b-r tlrc rcspondent No.1, wherein the claim of the 3.d resJrondent was allorved, the learned counsel for the petitioncr has sratcd Lhat ercn Lhough the petitioner has filed a case before thc respondenL \o l, the same was returned vide Endorsement dated 25.02.20(.).1. As against the said endorsement, the petitioner hils not takcn.llrv steps either to resubmit the same or challe nge the endorsemcnt.^'l'hc learncd counsel for the^petitioner has slate^(l lh.rl Lhc re sponrit ri L No- I in a mechanical manner has returned the petitron filed b1 thc pctitioner.

¶41

A pcrusal ol thc shos c rLtrsc noticc dated 25.O2.20O4 issued by the respondent No. I shorr s llL-1! rt is a consequential order issued pursuant Lo thc order dated i6.09.2003 vide Memo No.C/30 19/2002. The ordcr clated 16.09.2003 passed by the rcspondent No.I has bcconr, final :rs the petitioner has not taken an], steps to gct thc samc sct irsirlc. Even Lhough a case was ltled bcfore the rcsporrcient No. I, tht sarne \r,as rcturned but the petitioner has not borhert'rl r:ither lo rr:srrbrnit rhe same by clarifying the tegal pror.ision or l'ilinq :rn appropr iirr,,, irltplic;rtior.r/ writ against the re.urn

¶42

¶43

AAR J WP No -5667 of 2004

¶44

of the case vide endorsement dated 25.O2.2OO4. Once the order of the respondent No. I dared 16.09.2003 vide Memo No.C/3019/2OO2 has become final, thc issuance of show cause notice pursuant to the said order dated 16.09.2003 will not confer any independent righr to the petitioner to challenge the same. The petitioner should have taken steps for getting the original order dated 16.09.2OO3 set aside but for the rcasons best known to the petitioner, the same was allowed to become final. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity with the show cause notice dated 2s.o2.2oo4 issued by the respondent No. 1. Moreover, it is stated across the Bar that the respondent No.3-workman has already withdrawn half of the amount dcposited by the respondent No.2. Under these circumstances, therc are no merits in the present Writ petition and the Writ petition is liable to bc dismissed.

¶45

Accordingll., this Wrir petirion is dismissed.

¶46

Consequcntly, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Thcrc shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

To,

¶48

SD/-K. SREERAMA MURTHY //rRUE coPY//^{AsslsrAE*EGtsrRAR} sEcr_I6N oFFtcER

¶49

One CC to SRt S. RAVTNDRANATH, Adrocate tOpUCI

¶50

2_ Two CCs to Gp for Labour, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶51

One CC to SRt SURENDRA DESAI, Advocate [OpUC]

¶52

ONC CC IO SRI ADHI VENKATESWARA RAO, S.C. fOr CCNITAI GOVCTNMENT loPUCl

¶53

Two CD Copies.

MP SW

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610312023

T E c-l
)1..'
'J
s\ $T\ $tl

¶58

ORDER

¶59

WP.No.5667 of 2004

¶60

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

s=,
.-^!i)
(-<

Messers.Faraday Electricals v. the Comm,.for Wokmen Compensation and D.C.L and 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Messers.Faraday Electricals v. the Comm,.for Wokmen Compensation and D.C.L and 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sheribai Eshwaramma Vs Sri. Dr. a. Sharat

Kolisetty Raghunath Kumar Vs Dr.a Sharath

Badam Gangamohan Vs Sri. Somesh Kumar

Badawath Permlal, Nizamabad District. Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd., and 2

K. Mamatha d/o Ramalingaiah, 44 years, Vs The Project Officer

S. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director